From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Machek Subject: Re: SoCFPGA ethernet broken Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:38:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20151204093837.GB22014@amd> References: <561FF9E2.30102@opensource.altera.com> <56200687.9040903@gmail.com> <562005AD.8020903@opensource.altera.com> <56200BD7.8020505@gmail.com> <20151203204811.GB14427@amd> <5660B2EC.1050705@caviumnetworks.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Florian Fainelli , Dinh Nguyen , "David S. Miller" , david.daney@cavium.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" To: David Daney Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5660B2EC.1050705@caviumnetworks.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org > >While updating DTS might be good idea, I don't think you can simply > >blame this on DTS. If it worked before the change, it is supposed to > >work after the change, otherwise we call that change a "regression" > >and revert the change. > > FWIW: My initial patch to address the failure worked with the original DTB. > > Also: userspace wasn't broken. So, the commandment about not breaking > userspace wasn't broken. Although admittedly, breaking the kernel isn't > good either. You can't break neither kernel nor userspace. > >Plus, DTS is supposed to be ABI. Old DTS should still work on new > >kernels in ideal world. > > If you supply the device tree file in the kernel tree, it is not an ABI. > > If the device tree is not part of the kernel, and instead comes from the > boot firmware of the board, then you could make the ABI claim. It is an ABI if it was declared so, and it was. Yes, it _can_ come from kernel tree. That does not mean it has to. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html